Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. ANANTHI, J.
E. Nirmala - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Coimbatore & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 11925 of 2022 & W.M.P. No. 11339 of 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2022
For the Petitioner:T. Sai Krishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, Rajarajeshwari, R2, Keerthi, Abul Kalam, R.Prabakar, Advocates, (Intervenor).
The principle of 'audi-alteram partem' (hear the other side) must be adhered to before taking action that affects the rights of an individual.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Electricity Service Connection Disconnection - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Act, 2003 - Section 56, Section 57, Section 58 - The court directed the petitioner to give her objection to the concerned authority/respondents within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the said authority shall consider the objection of the petitioner and pass order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the objection of the petitioner. Till then, the second respondent/Junior Engineer (O & M), TANGEDCO, is directed to not to disconnect the above said two electricity Service Connections, in the petitioner's properties and the petitioner is prohibited from drawing water for commercial purpose from the subject Well/bore-well.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owns a land in Kolarpatti Village and has electricity service connections for agricultural and commercial purposes. The authorities issued orders to disconnect the electricity service connections without prior notice or opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders were passed, and directed the petitioner to submit objections to the concerned authority. The court also prohibited the petitioner from drawing water for commercial purpose from the Well/bore-well until the authority considers the objection and passes an order.
Issues: Lack of notice and opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders were passed, alleged unauthorized water tapping, and the petitioner's right to be heard before disconnection of electricity service connections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of 'audi-alteram partem' and directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's objection and pass an order on merits and in accordance with the law before disconnecting the electricity service connections.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to submit objections and the prohibition of drawing water for commercial purpose until the authority's decision. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondents relating to the orders of second respondent (1) dated 22.04.2022 in Ka.No.JE/O & M/K.Patti/K.Vi.Mi./A.No.42 in respect of the petitioner's service connection No.334-002-357,5HP & (2) dated 22.04.2022 in Ka.No.JE/O & M/K.Patti/K.Vi.Mi/A.No.42 in respect of petitioner's service connection No.334-002-1465.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records on the file of the respondents relating to the orders of second respondent (i) dated 22.04.2022 in Ka.No.JE/O&M/K.Patti/K.Vi.Mi./A.No.42 in respect of the petitioner's Service Connection No.334-002-357, 5 HP and (ii) dated 22.04.2022 in Ka.No.JE/O&M/K.Patti/K.Vi.Mi/A.No.42 in respect of the petitioner's Service connection No.334-002-1465.
2. The crux of the case of the petitioner is that she owns a land in S.F.No.26 in the Kolarpatti Village comprising of an extent of 2.75 Acres. According to the petitioner, she is carrying on agricultural operations in the said land (field) and having coconut grove. Since the said property is situated at Pollachi-Udumalaipettai Road, the petitioner had put up a service station for cleaning motor vehicles, which is a small business, from which she is eking out her livelihood.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that she had availed electricity supply from the second respondent in Service Connection No.334-002-357 for agricultural purpose and the said connection was obtained on 31.03.1985 with a 5.HP motor is being run with the aid of the aforesaid electricity supply. She also obtained a Service Connection in No.334-002-1465 for commercial purpose for use in the service station with minimal water usage.
4. It is also stated by the petitioner that she has been making payments for electricity consumption regularly without any default to the second respondent for the said electricity Service Connections.
5. It is further stated by the petitioner that the Well situated in the said field is located at a distance of about 113 meters from the PAP (Parambikulam Aliyar Project) canal and it is the stand of the respondents that it is at a distance of about 96 meters. The borewell which is being used for agricultural purpose during dry months, is situated at a distance of about 79 meters and it is the version of the respondents that it is at a distance of about 62 meters. Any how, according to the petitioner, the location of the Well and borewell in his lands, is beyond the prohibited distance of 50 meters from the PAP canal.
6. While so, the impugned orders were passed by the second respondent intimating that the said two electricity Service Connections would be disconnected in fifteen days from the date of the order and the impugned orders were served on the petitioner only on 26.04.2022. The impugned orders were issued pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 06.10.2021, inspection report of the Joint Inspection Committee, dated 09.04.2022 and the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 14.04.2022.
7. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she was not put on notice about the above said proceedings and was not even informed of the inspection said to have been conducted by the Joint Inspection Committee and according to the petitioner, no such inspection had taken place in her presence and no copy of such inspection report was furnished to her and that no opportunity of hearing was also afforded to her before such report.
8. It is further stated by the petitioner that from the proceedings dated 06.10.2021 of the first respondent, relating to the allegation of unauthorised drawal of water from the PAP canal and branch canals, a Joint Inspection Committee was formed, comprising of Sub-Collector, Executive Engineer of PWD, Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Executive Engineer of TANGEDCO and
